716 replies to this topic

[Kristian]

I tried to find similar topics on this but they were in the archive so I thought I'd start a new one. 

 

I see that Gary Anderson has added his ideas for qualifying to his column in Autosport today: 

 

 

 

On top of that, I would like to see reversed grids set by pre-race championship order. We would then have a true world champion who can drive a car in all situations and not just drive a fast car from the front.

 

On top of that, I would like to see reversed grids set by pre-race championship order. We would then have a true world champion who can drive a car in all situations and not just drive a fast car from the front.

 

Now I am a big fan of the current qualifying format and I don't think it needs changing - all about speed and getting the lap in at the right time, but without the boring first half hour of pre-2003. And none of this one-lap nonsense. Also I believe F1 should be about the fastest cars in quali getting the best advantage in the race, so this post is more of a Devil's Advocate idea. 

 

So, given that TV companies might well be complaining about declining viewership and less exciting racing, how would this be solved without wrecking the qualifying sessions? I think I might have the answer: Basically make a 'grid' in reverse championship order (currently ROS - 22, Ham, 21, ... Mal 1) and then average these positions with the positions in the actual qualifying session. If two drivers have the same average, then the fastest one in the session gets grid preference. So in theory, if drivers qualify in the order of the championship, then the fastest driver will start on pole (though this will never happen!). 

 

Let's say we do this for Montreal, and for argument's sake the qualifying results are the same as the Bahrain GP (I use that example as its the most similar circuit so far to Montreal), then we would have these results: 

 

 

Now what a race that would be! 

 

Statistically, the 'pole' would still go to the fastest driver in Quali, so it would just be the starting positions that are modified.

 

Advantages...

- Mixed grids leading to exciting racing

- Qualifying position still matters, unlike other reverse grid ideas. 

- Those knocked out in Q1 and Q2 still might rise up the grid. 

- The best drivers at overtaking as well as speed will win the championship, given that the highest grid slot the leader can start is 11th. 

- Seasons where there is one top team (e.g. 13 and 14) will still see them having to overtake loads of drivers. 

- This does advantage drivers in the lower midfield of the championship, but if they get a big result then this will be reversed later. So over a season, it will work out quite fairly (a major consideration for any qualifying system!) 

 

Disadvantages...

- Top drivers messing up in qualifying get a massive penalty (e.g. ALO and VET here)

- Super complicated for fans to follow until the last seconds. 

- Maybe the edge will be taken off getting 'pole' as he won't be starting from the front of the grid if he's in the top few drivers of the championship.  

 

 

Thoughts? Am I a genius? Or should I be taken off in a straightjacket? 

Edited by Kristian, 02 June 2014 - 15:14.

[Andrew Hope]

Reverse grids are bullshit. It's not up to the FIA to arbitrarily handicap successful drivers and teams. It's up to the teams doing a poor job to step it up or lose.

 

Let's just strap a bundle of bricks on the back of the Mercs as a warning never to do too good a job winning races ever again while we're at it.

[ollebompa]

As previously sated there's only one word that can describe reverse grids, bullshit. Not knocking on you for starting the discussion though, as it can be healthy to hear some of the other forumers thoughts.

[Radoye]

 

Driver Champ Quali Score GRID

RAI 11 6 8.5 1

PER 13 5 9 2

MAL 1 17 9 3

GUT 4 15 9.5 4

BOT 16 4 10 5

MAS 12 8 10 6

KVY 8 13 10.5 7

KOB 2 19 10.5 8

RIC 19 3 11 9

BUT 15 7 11 10

ROS 22 1 11.5 11

HAM 21 2 11.5 12

MAG 14 9 11.5 13

VER 9 14 11.5 14

SUT 5 18 11.5 15

CHI 3 22 12.5 16

GRO 10 16 13 17

BIA 7 20 13.5 18

ERI 6 21 13.5 19

VET 17 11 14 20

ALO 20 10 15 21

HUL 18 12 15 22

 

To get a grid this mixed up you might as well just draw the names from a hat.

[charly0418]

I don't like it and never will. The 2nd GP2 race is always a joke because of it.  

 

If we're complaining about double points then this one is even worse

[03011969]

It needs to be kept relatively simple to be attractive - and that idea is pretty butt-ugly.

[TheManAlive]

My view on qualifing is that they should leave it as is, but remove the parc ferme rules. The only problem right now is that the fastest car in qualie is likely to be the fastest car in the race.

 

If they remove the parc ferme, they still have to run the same engine, gearbox, tyres etc etc but should be allowed to change suspension setting, aero etc. That way a bad car in qualie can be worked on thus allowing cars to improve over night and possibly change the performance from qualie. Equally cars may chose the wrong settings and end up slower.

 

They brought in parc ferme to get rid of qualie engines etc, but that is not a problem anymore so just get rid of it.

[SenorSjon]

When they do reverse grids, I see a lot of potential Sundays spend with my family or on my motorbike.

[DS27]

The championship leaders will continually be starting in midfield and getting taken out in 1st lap incidents. Hardly makes for a gret race, especially in the closing stages of a championship.

[tempname11]

Actually, this is a very good idea.

 

Remember, each time a leading driver is starting from the back (or vice-versa, a backmarker from the front) it creates tremendous excitement. And this would guarantee that excitement each race. Personally, I would be thrilled if I knew that Hamilton would start 11-th in Canada this week. Would make for great racing.

 

Formula 1 needs to stop the half-assed steps that inch it toward being a 'show'. It should wholly embrace that is really, at it's core, is now REALLY a show. The survival of the series depends on the quality of the show, on whether the races are exciting to watch -- and nothing else.

 

This idea alone could replace all the DRS- and double-point-style gimmicks. With it, the racing would be great even without them. Or should I say, ESPECIALLY without them?

 

Cheers all 

[Kristian]

 

Formula 1 needs to stop the half-assed steps that inch it toward being a 'show'. It should wholly embrace that is really, at it's core, is now REALLY a show. The survival of the series depends on the quality of the show, on whether the races are exciting to watch -- and nothing else.

 

This idea alone could replace all the DRS- and double-point-style gimmicks. With it, the racing would be great even without them. Or should I say, ESPECIALLY without them?

 

 

This is exactly why it came to my mind - its a more pure and fair form of appealing to the new 'short attention span' generation without all the DRS/double points crap. 

[Bartonz20let]

I'd love to see the grid on reverse order of WDC, would be great to watch the top drivers fighting through a field of maldanados and kobis with Chilton fighting to keep p1 for more than a corner however it's not a serious thought, it would be interesting but also pretty stupid after a while.

[Jerem]

I must admit I was about to call BS on this thread, but actually your idea is quite funny. So I don't think it's worth anything for F1 (and I'm against any kind of reversed grid in F1), but maybe some other championships could try this (for instance, with multiple races in a weekend, instead of normal grid or reversed first 8, this).

[Jon83]

Up there with one of the most ridiculous ideas you'll ever hear. 

 

For those in favour, there is nothing exciting about watching Hamilton, Alonso etc breezing past Caterham and Marussia cars. 

[PayasYouRace]

Well it's an interesting take on it, but I don't think it's really necessary. I wouldn't mind seeing it applied as an experiment, but really I'd just rather have the guys line up in order of "practice" speeds.

 

As an aside I've always assumed "pole position" to mean the guy at the front of the grid, not the fastest qualifier.

[eronrules]

actually, reverse grid works if there is a spec series and some teams are better than others, but  a series as innovative and varied as F1 and MotoGp for that matter, reverse grid is a stupid idea. 

 

however, an even more stupid idea is the so called 'success balast' i.e you get weight penalty if you are too successful. 

[RubalSher]

I think it is an interesting idea and definitely can be sold. I hope Bernie is listening and sooner than later we have mixed grids, one way or the other

 

It is not as if F1 or Bernie in particular havent tried to turn this sport into a show. We got pirellis, slow cars on full tanks, delta driving, engine restrictions, no wet weather races and so on. Drivers themselves going on record saying they are hardly pushing. I wont be surprised if mixed grids are next on Bernie's agenda coz the very survival of the sport is in question with boring races run tediously from start to finish.

 

Time for a shakeup methinks, bring in these mixed grids and separate the men from the boys.

[Rob G]

I wouldn't mind a format like this for a non-championship F1 race (they used to have those in the olden days, you know), but never, ever, ever, EVER for races counting for the championship.

[Kerch]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't think that would be spectacularly entertaining, but it would also be massively frustrating seeing championship contenders retiring more often in first corner incidents. 

[RubalSher]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't think that would be spectacularly entertaining, but it would also be massively frustrating seeing championship contenders retiring more often in first corner incidents. 

 

6 races so far this year and the only driver taken out in a first corner incident was Massa when Kobayashi punted him out in AUS. First corner incidents are rare these days, so I wont worry too much about them.

Edited by RubalSher, 02 June 2014 - 17:44.

[Bartonz20let]

Up there with one of the most ridiculous ideas you'll ever hear.

For those in favour, there is nothing exciting about watching Hamilton, Alonso etc breezing past Caterham and Marussia cars.

No? Lewis starting behind JB or Alonso behind Massa every race with a host of crazy and slow drivers infront? It would be carnage and totally rediculous but incredible to watch all the same

[Fastcake]

No. Reverse grids are a bad idea, and are not wanted by anyone other than a tiny minority of fans.

 

As I say in every thread, the qualifying system currently in use is the best one F1 has used, and there is no appetite for a radical change.

[Cacarella]

This would only be a reasonable idea if the other changes mentioned in Anderson's article were introduced, ie: reduce aero dependency by %50 and increase the

width of the rear tyres.  Otherwise the drivers starting at the back would catch up to a car that's only a second slower and be stuck behind it for the remainder of the race for all the

dirty air it's throwing around the track.

 

But if you reduced aero dependency and increased rear tyre size, you may not need a reverse grid gimmick to make it exciting.

Edited by Cacarella, 02 June 2014 - 18:11.

[Frank Tuesday]

I say go back to 4 practice sessions (2 on Friday and 2 on Saturday), and the grid is set by the individual drivers single best lap in any of the 4 sessions.  The race is the event, not qualifying.   

 

These days, qualifying is just another way to make money by selling advertising.  That is the main reason I doubt we'll see grids based on reverse championship order.  How much money will be lost by not airing qualifying?  Bernie can't charge the broadcasters as much.  Teams couldn't get as much from sponsors (cutting potential TV time by 1/3).  It would cost F1 hundreds of million dollars in revenue to make that switch.  Unless they can think of a way to televise it, it is an idea that is DOA.

[Atreiu]

I wouldn't mind a format like this for a non-championship F1 race (they used to have those in the olden days, you know), but never, ever, ever, EVER for races counting for the championship.

 

 

Which is one of the reasons why there should be non-GP races. So F1 can experiment on whatever it is they want before adopting it in races. With the calendar easily at or above 18 races per year, pick one out (whichever pays for it - say Abu Dhabi - or whichever is politically important but needs some incentive to remain - say Nuburgring or Hockenheim) and let hell break lose.

 

 

 

Nothing worse than another unexciting race can happen.

[Jon83]

No? Lewis starting behind JB or Alonso behind Massa every race with a host of crazy and slow drivers infront? It would be carnage and totally rediculous but incredible to watch all the same

 

It would be ridiculous only. 

 

Qualify the car as high up the grid as possible and start from that position, as they do now. There is no way that should be changed. We have enough nonsensical stuff happening in F1 as it is. 

 

And based on this season, Hamilton and Rosberg could start in the pitlane and they'd probably still finish 1 and 2. 

 

Also, if we reverse the grid as they do in GP2, are drivers not just going to slow down in qualifying to avoid being rewarded for their hard work with a slot at the back end of the grid? Or are we talking here about F1 having two races over the weekend and doing what GP2 currently does (which I also think is a joke)?

[KWSN - DSM]

Reversed grids would be yet another nail in the dumping-down coffin F1 is trying to become. Just let the racers race, make the drivers the most important part of the car in order for us to see a battle for the World Drivers Championship. The boat on that have sailed a long time ago, if it even really ever existed, the comment about the powers to be ignoring the fans complaints is more saying than the dreadful idea of once more spicing somethink which should never be spiced.

 

[Kristian]

 

Also, if we reverse the grid as they do in GP2, are drivers not just going to slow down in qualifying to avoid being rewarded for their hard work with a slot at the back end of the grid? Or are we talking here about F1 having two races over the weekend and doing what GP2 currently does (which I also think is a joke)?

Thats the beauty of this system; to get the best possible result you still need to be fastest. 

 

The only way you can guarantee yourself to be high up would be to be in a fast car and purposefully retire from a couple of races, which would be ridiculous. 

 

All the other reverse grids idea mean that being slow could be of benefit, yet this one totally negates that. 

 

A Caterham will never be on the front row in this format, and any lower down driver who does a great quali session (e.g. Gutierrez in this example) is rewarded with a fantastic grid slot. It will help drivers at the lower end of the grid get noticed. Also, its not entirely random, as Nico and Lewis are still next to each other for the race.

 

Actuallty, I posted it as a slightly mad idea but now I'm warming to it... 

 

Oh, and for it to work the first race of the season will be traditional qualifying and grid slots, then this system kicks in after the second race. 

Edited by Kristian, 02 June 2014 - 19:39.

[BRG]

British short oval racing (stock cars and hot rods) have always used reverse grids with out any ill-effects other than providing the paying fans with a some proper racing.  The top drivers seem to manage to get through and win races, even though they are often only 20 or so laps of a 440 yard oval.  

[SpartanChas]

I wouldn't mind a format like this for a non-championship F1 race (they used to have those in the olden days, you know), but never, ever, ever, EVER for races counting for the championship.

 

This is what I was going to say. Would be good if maybe they had non-championship races mid-season and after the final championship race, just 'for fun', where they could try reverse grids and maybe other crazy formats like, oh I don't know, put the drivers into different cars. Yeah I know, that will NEVER happen.

[RottenAli]

Reverse grid... No. Only changes I would make to qualifying at the moment would be have a certain number of kilo of weights added to represent the number of points gained by the said drivers during the previous race. That, and change most of the events into two day timetable. Simply an open two hours of practice Saturday morning and the hour of qualifying on Saturday afternoon.

[TimRTC]

Reverse grids are used by feeder series to shake things up a bit and really to give drivers a bit more of a challenge. Series like F3 are designed as series for upcoming drivers so it is to their benefit to learn to start from further back. It can also be used in series like the BTCC where you have multiple races on a single weekend.

 

For a single race series like F1 then it is completely inappropriate, the fastest car should start first.

[johnmhinds]

Reverse grid... No. Only changes I would make to qualifying at the moment would be have a certain number of kilo of weights added to represent the number of points gained by the said drivers during the previous race. That, and change most of the events into two day timetable. Simply an open two hours of practice Saturday morning and the hour of qualifying on Saturday afternoon.

 

Nope.

Both reverse grids and success ballasts are dumb ideas for any kind of racing.

 

You shouldn't punish a team/driver for being successful.

 

They don't make Usain Bolt run 50m more because he's the fastest runner in the world.... 

Edited by johnmhinds, 02 June 2014 - 23:31.

[Anderis]

This is an interesting idea actually. I kinda expected most of the people wouldn't like it and some of them using words like "bullshit", but nevermind. I'm not a racing conservative and I like new concepts and thinking of them even if I know they don't have much, if any chance, to be introduced. And this is one of the most interesting things I've read for a long time. Much more than those neverending "more powerful engines", "less restrictions", "bring back V10", "bring back refuelling" etc.

 

I see F1 is becoming less and less attractive for me. And no. That's not new regulations, quiet and less powerful engines, new circuits with large tarmac run-offs, ugly cars, two-coumpound rule, fuel saving, degrading tyres, double points, cost cutting etc. that makes my feeling. The problem is lying elsewhere and it's much harder to get realised and even harder to get sorted out. It's about incredible level of professionalism. Drivers and teams are getting better and better with being prepared for every possible scenario. Drivers run around the circuit houndreds of times in simulators if they need to iron out every little issue with their driving. Teams are that much advanced on an engineering side that they are capable of getting very much performance out of the car without compromising reliability. And with a help of more and more developed computers and software, they are prepared for pretty much everything, so they chose a strategy very close to optimum most of the time and set-up is that close to the optimum most of the time that performance doesn't change that much depending on circuit and conditions. And cars are so well-designed, that one team can't gain too much ground with a single package of big upgrades. F1 is becoming too predictable. Too little surprising. It just doesn't give the same amount of uncertainty as it used to and that was the reason I started following this sport.

Also unfair share of TV money and too big costs that make pecking order stale contribute to this, but that's another matter.

 

I find your idea about reversing grid this way very interesting. The outcome of the racing weekend would become much more unpredictable, which is what I need to keep my passion for F1. That's even better than the normal reverse grid based on championship standings idea, because it gives you a reason to turn the TV on on Saturday and a starting grid would be changing much more from race to race, making things even more interesting. I also like the thing that it's sophisticated, because the more sophisticated the sport is, the more I enjoy it. I'm not sure if it SHOULD be introduced, but I'm sure that I WOULD LIKE to see it.

The thing that I would add is that the rule doesn't apply to Monaco GP.

 

I know it's never going to happen, but thank you for creating this thread. Even if other call this a bullshit or say it has no place in F1, it gives me something to fantasize about for a next couple of days. I need this because I'm kinda tired of reality.

[ensign14]

 

They don't make Usain Bolt run 50m more because he's the fastest runner in the world.... 

 

No.  They make him run 100m.  They make everyone in that event run 100m. 

 

But in F1 they make the teams at the back run several hundred metres more by having them start at the back. 

 

Reverse grids are bullshit. It's not up to the FIA to arbitrarily handicap successful drivers and teams. It's up to the teams doing a poor job to step it up or lose.

 

 

I could guarantee Marussia being competitive with Red Bull.  Just give them Red Bull's budget.  The proof of this is where Red Bull were when they had the Stewart budget.  Or Mercedes with the Mercedes budget compared to where they were with the Tyrrell budget.  Marussia being behind Red Bull is not because they're doing a poor job.  They're doing a bloody brilliant job.  They're a couple of seconds behind - call it 5% - despite having a tenth of the budget.  It's as if West Brom were 4 points behind Man City rather than 40.

 

Starting the cars in spending order - which is more or less what we have now - is just as arbitrary as reverse championship order.

[Zoetrope]

I'm not sure if it SHOULD be introduced, but I'm sure that I WOULD LIKE to see it.

Same here. It's not always an easy decision whether to support such a huge change, but I am not a "racing purist" either.

[Seanspeed]

It is certainly old and we should let it die in peace.

EDIT: Oh, and where is readonly?

Edited by Seanspeed, 02 June 2014 - 21:26.

[Frank Tuesday]

No.  They make him run 100m.  They make everyone in that event run 100m. 

 

But in F1 they make the teams at the back run several hundred metres more by having them start at the back. 

 

...

 

Starting the cars in spending order - which is more or less what we have now - is just as arbitrary as reverse championship order.

The car at the back has to go an extra 160m, over a race distance of 305km.  That is the equivalent of running an extra 5cm in the 100m.  In the 100m, that would make a time difference of .001s, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the timing accuracy.  In other words, insignificant.  I could counter with the Marathon, in which runners in back can lose minutes before they even cross the line.   

 

Of course the reason that they line up in a grid is that there isn't room to put all the cars equidistant from the first turn, which would be the most fair way.  So lets assume that you let every driver do a single lap on their own, we'll call it the 0th lap of the race.  Every driver starts and finishes the lap from the same point, so after all the drivers have done their 0th lap, you can see the order, and time gaps, at the start of the 1st lap.  So then you can put all the cars in order of how they finished their 0th lap, and then they are lined up as if they all started from the same place.  Obviously, qualifying is quite different because you get multiple chances to do your 0th lap.  You also start a fixed distance behind the car ahead of you, instead of the actual time gap.  Arbitrary, but at least fitting with sporting principles.    

[KingTiger]

There is no debate to be had. A debate would imply that both sides of the argument are somewhat valid. There is absolutely no validity in having reverse grids in F1. 

[noikeee]

Reverse grids are ****.

[noikeee]

No.  They make him run 100m.  They make everyone in that event run 100m. 

 

But in F1 they make the teams at the back run several hundred metres more by having them start at the back. 

 

When you find me a modern grand prix circuit that is able to accomodate a 24-wide start, this argument will make sense.

 

In real proper sports merit should be awarded, not handicapped. Also, any reverse grids will completely spoil the thrill, excitement and pure competition of grand prix Saturdays. Even this convoluted idea.

 

I'm not allergic to straying away from tradition when it's necessary and a real evolution, but on something like this where the merits are extremely dubious, Formula 1 should take pride on its history and traditions and keep it as it bloody is. Qualifying was already messed around enough with the knockout system, which did improve it, it doesn't need any more radical nonsense.

[RubalSher]

There is no debate to be had. A debate would imply that both sides of the argument are somewhat valid. There is absolutely no validity in having reverse grids in F1. 

 

It has as much validity as the current system.

[Mauseri]

Thoughts? Am I a genius? Or should I be taken off in a straightjacket? 

 I'm not generally a fan of reverse grids, but this has to be the best reverse grid proposal I have read so far. And it is not because Kimi is on pole and Alonso last row

 

I think the method has some credit of reversing bad luck, but still giving a value for driving skill and leaving a chance for the skilled drivers with good cars to finish where they should.

 

Maybe those drivers who are not so good qualifiers but who do good job in the races would have a little bit more hard time. But it is the same for everyone.

 

Maybe a slight weakness in the method is that Mercedes dirvers would always starting exactly in the middle of the pack. Maybe it could be tweaked further.

[Radoye]

When you find me a modern grand prix circuit that is able to accomodate a 24-wide start, this argument will make sense.

 

Even then not all 24 starting places would be truly equal, because some would offer a better line into turn one than others.

[Boxerevo]

There is no debate to be had. A debate would imply that both sides of the argument are somewhat valid. There is absolutely no validity in having reverse grids in F1. 

Exacly.Is just the end of "qualifying".

 

In every competition,the main goal,is to win.

 

To maximize my chances of winning in a reverse grid,i just have to go there and do my worst job possible in saturday.

 

You can create very complex laws about it and in the end,sandbagging will prevail.

 

Resume,it doesn't make sense,without killing "qualify".

[Brother Fox]

As a general rule, reverse grids are unsporting (like added weight in horse racing) but the method is somewhat interesting. At least fairer than a simple reverse grid system.

Although my fist choice would be as said early on above, get rid of parc ferme.

[solochamp07]

Not at Monaco, please. It would be a crashfest of epic proportions. There aside, I'd be willing to try it for a year or two if they scrapped drs. Much cleverer idea than the pure reverse grid, imo. I say good effort to the op.

[George Costanza]

If you want to see a 1998 Belgian GP crash every race..... then go right ahead at reverse grids.

 

Although, it was quite a fun sight to watch the 1998 Japanese GP when Michael Schumacher was sent to the back of the grid for stalling and fought back.... But that's a unique example and one driver.

Edited by George Costanza, 03 June 2014 - 04:03.

[alfa1]

How about (and I know this is a radical thought) stop messing about with the rules.

[RottenAli]

Maybe if the title had already been mathematically wrapped up there could be merit in doing a reverse grid, but many other positions further down the leader board would be contestable.
Almost no one likes the double points final race but I see more of a solution from this thread. Remove Saturday qualifying from AbuDhabi GP and hold a one hour sprint race on Saturday afternoon starting with reverse WC points position order in a single file rolling start. Award a normal full set of points for this one off result and have the normal GP on Sunday but with normal grid starting arranged in a top down positional WC points order.